Topic: in the future, token holders need KYC - page 2. (Read 217 times)
Yes, it could happen if in the future the token holder will need KYC, the main goal is of course to be safer, but we also don't know whether this really materializes for the future and of course we hope there is the best policy for the token holders
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
That would go almost completely against the idea of cryptocurrency and decentralization so I'm going to do something I don't normally do and say categorically that something won't happen. There's no KYC on fiat so why should there be on crypto.
I can't agree with that. KYC is maybe not completely compliant with idea of cryptocurrencies anonimity but it has nothing to do with decentralization and I don't see how KYC would endanger it.
Besides, cryptocurrencies also need to adjust because changes happen all the time. Increased number of scams and misuse require some action and KYC might help in part of it.
Cryptocurrencies can survive and evolve only if will keep ahead with time and requirements.
The thing is, `anonymous ` may have not been the original designer idea with cryptocurrencies but was a big factor in value during the early days... With more and more people using cryptos, anonymity may actually be holding valuations back with a modern market. ex. large corporate or retailer investments.
I think there will always be a reining "anonymous" token, Monero is a good example. But for the vast majority, crypto doesn't necessarily need it for massive consumer and worldly adoption
indeed kyc can make crypto better, especially to eradicate abuse and other illegal actions. to be honest I prefer this kyc requirement than crypto must be under the control of a regulator. there is indeed something better than kyc or regulator and I'm sure in the future this problem can be solved properly.
A KYC process can easily be bypassed and still used for illegal activities with no trace to the actual culprit.
Crypto would evolve and adapt as time goes. KYC for all token (and coin) holders is not plausible at this time, neither is it necessary. I think it would be also in future.
Crypto would evolve and adapt as time goes. KYC for all token (and coin) holders is not plausible at this time, neither is it necessary. I think it would be also in future.
I do not think it necessary, it´s enough that this is already a requirement for icos and exchanges, the purpose is to know where the funds come from to obtain these tokens. In addition, I would be disrespecting the anonymity that represents the cryptos, being a bit vague because in the same way, the use of money illegally exists anyway, and only this would be an excuse to exercise greater control in cryptocurrencies
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
Yes I believe that will be possible in the nearest future, it will become a criteria for the development of any token in the future to enable KYC and that is where the real regulations will cone in. Once every cryptocurrency have the feature of knowing your customers it will be easy for the authority to trace any illegal dealings that may be carried out using such coin. There's no KYC on fiat so why should there be on crypto.
There's definitely ways to trace fiat though including the serial numbers. On the whole, outside of illegal activity, it's very easy for a government to know how much money their citizens have.
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
Owners of tokens do not really need to check KYC. They can live without depriving them of their anonymity in the crypto currency. Under the pretext of combating money-laundering, owners of crypto-currencies are deprived of anonymity and want to continue to control cash flows. After all, who owns this information, he has power. At the same time, many people admire at this forum that at every step they will be required to provide their confidential data, various documents confirming this identification information.Offshore zones officially exist for laundering dirty money. States do not want to remove them, since it is profitable for them, all having power have the opportunity to launder their bribes in high state positions there. Here by means of KYC they want to take away from people confidentiality and anonymity and further to manage people, tracing their every step.
I think it is ok to ask KYC process for ICO investment and bounty holders, as it can stop unauthorized usage of money invested and whether the ICO is legal as if they are scammers then they WONT ask KYC.
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
Majority of the ICOs are now asking for KYC documentation even to the bounty hunters. But the main reason for it is to remain compliant with the existing anti money laundering law.
Having a strict kyc guideline is now a requirement for majority of the ICOs. But such guidelines are directly against the nature of cryptocurrency. While a cryptocurrency is meant to be anonymous, such KYC guideline is actually ruining that basic fact. But if it helps a startup to continue their business in the cryptospace, we will welcome the change for sure!
Thise who need to use crypto for illegal business, they will anyways continue doing that by using fake KYC. So absolute achievement is not possible, but to some extent it can cut down the illegal activities.
I think this just ties up to people who use crypto into some kind of centralization crypto has the aim to make the global economy more decentralized. I think this system will stop in the future and decentralized projects will get more value.
As long as tokens are built on decentralized platforms, I think it'll evolve into a two-tier space.
Tokens would be issued and redeemed by companies and brokers, who might have a KYC mechanism to comply with securities regulators. But since no entity has control over the underlying blockchain, they can't stop a secondary P2P market from developing where investors can buy and sell without KYC requirements. I would opt to invest on the secondary market, preferably using decentralized exchanges, to avoid trust and privacy breaches.
Tokens would be issued and redeemed by companies and brokers, who might have a KYC mechanism to comply with securities regulators. But since no entity has control over the underlying blockchain, they can't stop a secondary P2P market from developing where investors can buy and sell without KYC requirements. I would opt to invest on the secondary market, preferably using decentralized exchanges, to avoid trust and privacy breaches.
Some projects organizes KYC process for it's investors during it's ICOs. But once it goes I'm exchange the project can no longer control it's circulation.
Some exchanges also require traders and investors to identify themselves.
The main reason for this it to ensure they are not from states where cryptocurrency circulation is restricted.
A KYC process can easily be bypassed and still used for illegal activities with no trace to the actual culprit.
Crypto would evolve and adapt as time goes. KYC for all token (and coin) holders is not plausible at this time, neither is it necessary.
Some exchanges also require traders and investors to identify themselves.
The main reason for this it to ensure they are not from states where cryptocurrency circulation is restricted.
A KYC process can easily be bypassed and still used for illegal activities with no trace to the actual culprit.
Crypto would evolve and adapt as time goes. KYC for all token (and coin) holders is not plausible at this time, neither is it necessary.
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
That would go almost completely against the idea of cryptocurrency and decentralization so I'm going to do something I don't normally do and say categorically that something won't happen. There's no KYC on fiat so why should there be on crypto.
I can't agree with that. KYC is maybe not completely compliant with idea of cryptocurrencies anonimity but it has nothing to do with decentralization and I don't see how KYC would endanger it.
Besides, cryptocurrencies also need to adjust because changes happen all the time. Increased number of scams and misuse require some action and KYC might help in part of it.
Cryptocurrencies can survive and evolve only if will keep ahead with time and requirements.
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
That would go almost completely against the idea of cryptocurrency and decentralization so I'm going to do something I don't normally do and say categorically that something won't happen. There's no KYC on fiat so why should there be on crypto.
maybe in the future all token holders need KYC so that a token cannot be misused for bad or illegal things. Is it possible
Jump to: